Coupe Rear Glass Area Designed To Rot

[rocket366]

So I had a small spot of rust by the rear glass area I decided to check out today.

After 3 hrs grinding out 1/2 inch of filler in both corners found the rot.

What a dumb design! When water gets under the rear window stainless trim where does it go NOWHERE!

Till it rusts a hole in the steel then it will drain inside the trunk.

The sheet metal at the bottom of the glass area is low and will always hold water what a dumb design.

Oh well patch panels will fix it.

Anyone with a coupe should check this area for rust.

 

[cudak888]

Quite normal on just about any car of the period or earlier. It's just something one has to put up with - the design of a window channel is inherently a water trap.

-Kurt

 

[droptop73]

It was called "planned obsolescence" places were planned into cars to trap water and road grime causing rust in visible areas. It made you want to buy a new car sooner. It's also why they changed every year.

 

[matrixx]

Makes me want to check mine after seeing this and Mason's car. I haven't seen any visible rust anywhere around the window but it could be well covered. Wouldn't surprise me after seeing other repairs.

I think it should be a federal rule for documentation of where bondo was applied and kept inside of the car for ever so someone 20 years later can know where all the filler is. It's like a dang Easter egg hunt except you don't get happy when you find some.

 

[cudak888]

It's like a dang Easter egg hunt except you don't get happy when you find some.

That's why we have the Shooters Award. It's advance warning to cheap bodyshops

-Kurt

 

[mach1000]

Same potential issue with the 7173 Cougar. You just need to drive faster to get that water pushed out of there!

 

[Kit Sullivan]

I wouldn't so much call it "planned obsolecence"...purposely designing the car to rot away quickly...as I would just say that they designed the cars with very little or no care about rust prevention, as the product was really intended to have about a 4-6 year "shelf life". Back then a typical 10 year old car was a resident of the local scrap yard.

 

[matrixx]

I wouldn't so much call it "planned obsolecence"...purposely designing the car to rot away quickly...as I would just say that they designed the cars with very little or no care about rust prevention, as the product was really intended to have about a 4-6 year "shelf life". Back then a typical 10 year old car was a resident of the local scrap yard.

Makes you wonder where the " they don't build them like they used to" phrase originated. Sounds like they were pretty crappy then.

 

[Kit Sullivan]

Yes, I have always wondered about the phrase myself. I think it was more in reference to cars built in the 40s-50s...now those cars had bodys and frames that were solid as tanks, and just as heavy. But they did last a long time...its just the rest of the parts of those cars that didn't last: soft trim and such.

Cars got cheaply made beginning in the 50s, more so in the 60s and the 70s was the nadir...the ultimate craptastic cars ever made. It takes extraordinary effort to make a typical 70s car last over 40 years.

But everything in cars has improved over the years: better paint, better soft trim, more durable plastics, better manufacturing and assembly methods...you name it.

I think cars today are far better for the most part, but obviously cheaper in a few too obvious ways.

I wonder...is there a category for restorations that requires only period-correct parts, chemicals and techniques that were specific to the time-frame of the car's original manufacture?

Even if done meticulously, would a 71 Mustang restored in that fashion, with single-stage enamel over old-style primer, 71-era vinyl-stripe technology, etc...how would that car compare to another 72 using all of today's advanced techniques and supplies?

 

[jbojo]

I wouldn't so much call it "planned obsolecence"...purposely designing the car to rot away quickly...as I would just say that they designed the cars with very little or no care about rust prevention, as the product was really intended to have about a 4-6 year "shelf life". Back then a typical 10 year old car was a resident of the local scrap yard.

I agree with Kit's assessment. Back then they didn't have the 100,000 mile rust through warranty that they have on today's cars so it probably wasn't one of their highest concerns then. These issues probably was a factor on designing changes today to prevent the rust plus better materials today.

 

[1973grandeklar]

I can attest to the fact that 1968-1972 Pontiac GTO. Lemans all had this same issue. The rear glass would hold the water in the corners! And every one had rust in the corners. If you were lucky you catch it early before rust through. Pull the glass, fix the area, re-install the glass. Then once a year I pull the trim off and clean and dry this area. Same thing I would recommend for these Mustangs.

Also, looking at the fastback, is this any better? Seems that they have a little better slope, but still has an area for collecting water.

 

[cudak888]

Also, looking at the fastback, is this any better? Seems that they have a little better slope, but still has an area for collecting water.

The channel on the Sportsroof continues straight past the window onto the trunk corner flanges, which turn down on each side of the trunk.

Water may pool under the trim, but anything that gets to the bottom corner simply drains straight out the back over the taillight panel.

Even severely rotted cars can be decent in this area at times.

-Kurt